| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
I didn't expect this. Even better, neither did he.
"Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust," by Nahal Toosi for Associated Press (thanks to Phil):
NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks and defended the right to cast doubt on the Holocaust in a tense appearance at Columbia University, whose president accused the hard-line leader of behaving like "a petty and cruel dictator."Ahmadinejad smiled at first but appeared increasingly agitated, decrying the "insults" and "unfriendly treatment." Columbia President Lee Bollinger and audience members took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, as well as Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.
He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.
"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."
Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."
"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians. "I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment."
During a question and answer session, Ahmadinejad appeared tense and unsmiling, in contrast to more relaxed interviews and appearances earlier in the day.
In response to one audience, Ahmadinejad denied he was questioning the existence of the Holocaust: "Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?"
But then he said he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust.
"There's nothing known as absolute," he said.
He reiterated his desire to visit ground zero to express sympathy with the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, but then appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible.
"Why did this happen? What caused it? What conditions led to it?" he said. "Who truly was involved? Who was really involved and put it all together?"
Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Ahmadinejad said the judiciary system executed violent criminals and high-level drug dealers, comparing them to microbes eliminated through medical treatment. Pressed specifically about punishment of homosexuals, he said: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."
With the audience laughing derisively, he continued: "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."
Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader's Holocaust denial.
During his prepared remarks, the Iranian president did not address Bollinger's accusations directly.
What a surprise!
Posted by Robert at September 24, 2007 4:18 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yep. Bollinger was the best surprise of the entire event.
Posted by: Allahfanculo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 24, 2007 4:28 PM
Let's remember this guy for the year's anti-Dhimmi award!
Posted by: Celsius at September 24, 2007 4:29 PM
Not a bad model if this ends up being the template under which Mohammedan thugs are invited to US campii.
Bollinger certainly looks cleverer than anyone had imagined!
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 24, 2007 4:32 PM
"He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant"
...of course, he must have been talking about the Islamic party members and ruling elite....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 24, 2007 4:33 PM
Not what I expected either.
Wonder how it will get reported in the Middle East.......
Posted by: g hadi hater at September 24, 2007 4:34 PM
Not what I expected either.
Wonder how it will get reported in the Middle East.......
Posted by: g hadi hater at September 24, 2007 4:35 PM
If not for the Romans (Hadrain, I think.), Palestine might still be called Judea.
On the other hand, by scattering the Jews throughout the Empire, the Romans spared a large population of Jews from the first holocaust, aka Islam. Jews flourished in Europe, in spite of deep seeded antisemitism, until Hitler came along.
Jewish homeland, it's either Judea or Egypt.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 24, 2007 4:36 PM
go read have your say. "nigel" british liberal types warm up to iran whilst denouncing evil american foreign policy.
do brits know that in iran women are dragged out of their cars for not wearing a hijab, or for wearing make up and western style clothing.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=7476&&edition=2&ttl=20070924213413
all the british seem to respect iran whilst denouncing the USA.
topsy turvy.
i've also noticed that the new way of left/liberal thought towards WW2 is that they are now stating that not the USA but the Soviet Union single handedly turned the tide of war and overthrew fascism in europe. i understand that it was a massive joint effort but to bvelieve that it were the soviets, this is pure marxist propaganda.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at September 24, 2007 4:39 PM
Okay, good first step. But Iran (along with Iraq and North Korea) was part of the "Axis of Evil" (why does that simplistic term bring up memories of "Snidely Whiplash" and "Boris and Natasha"?). It's politically acceptable to criticise Iran.
Now, how about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Sure, it might cost an endowment or two, but being truthful has its own rewards.
PS: Any Columbia faculty or students here?
Posted by: special_guest at September 24, 2007 4:40 PM
If the chattering classes really had any interest in learning about islam and jihad, the runt's performances today would make an excellent case study in the techniques of deception used in communicating with non-muslims, including taquiyya, tuquoque, and kitman.
Posted by: Infidel33 at September 24, 2007 4:42 PM
"He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant"
...of course, he must have been talking about the Islamic party members and ruling elite....
Or Columbia graduates.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 24, 2007 4:42 PM
"he said: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country.""
I had to laugh at that one. What do they call it? ... a rose by any other name ...
In many cases they also call it pediphilia where the grown men like underage boys - it really isn't homosexuality. Historically, when they enslave young children - boys and girls - they do whatever they want to them.
Posted by: R_not at September 24, 2007 4:43 PM
"There's nothing known as absolute," Ahmadinejad said.
Wait until Allah hears about this!
Posted by: alexon at September 24, 2007 4:43 PM
Bollinger was a pleasant surprise. He completely hammered Ahmadinejad on some key issues--and Ahmadinejad danced around almost every single one. Bollinger pressed him, multiple times, to answer whether or not he wanted to destroy Israel, and he wouldn't answer the question one way or the other. And yet he still got applauded by all the liberals in the crowd, especially when he criticized Bollinger's criticisms of him (though the crowd did overwhelmingly boo his comment about there not being any gays in Iran).
Posted by: staff_of_magius at September 24, 2007 4:46 PM
NewsFlash via Ahmadinejad:
There aren't any homosexuals in Iran!
Posted by: alexon at September 24, 2007 4:47 PM
Hehe. It was pretty funny.
DinnerJacket came off as quite the Persian shoe!
What a fool.
Posted by: mike trivisonno at September 24, 2007 4:47 PM
Let's remember this guy for the year's anti-Dhimmi award!
Not so fast - Cavuto interviewed a guy who thought that Bollinger adopted this attitude to deflect some criticism for inviting the TIC in the first place. He said that hardball questions from Bollinger were out of character.
Motives aside, I'm happy B did it.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 24, 2007 4:50 PM
"He [Ahmadinejad] reiterated his desire to visit ground zero to express sympathy with the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, but then appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible.
'Why did this happen? What caused it? What conditions led to it?' he said."
-- from the article above
Qur'an, passim. Hadith, passim. Sira, passim. Take them seriously, take them to heart, do not ignore what they tell you, and the duty of Jihad becomes clear. Follow the logic of Jihad, and the instruments available to Muslims at this moment in history: qitaal as terrorism, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest. Now choose one or more. Al Qaeda chose the first, but is also delighted with those who employ the second, and the third, and the fourth methods for spreading Islam, and removing all obstacles to Islam, whether this is accomplished by terrorizing, or buying off, or misleading, or simply outbreeding, the Infidel enemy.
That is the answer to "why did this happen." No one would have sought to find the "root causes" of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in anything other than Kodo, the blend of emperor-worship and extreme Japanese militarism that all through the 1920s began spreading throughout the ruling class, both military and civilian, in Japan. No one would think to find the "root causes" for Hitler's attack on Poland that led Britain and France to finally declare war, in anything other than the doctrine promulgated by Hitler that the "Aryans" of Germany needed, and were entitled to, Lebensraum by seizing lands belonging to all non-Aryan and therefore inferior peoples.
No one should seek to find the "root causes" of Muslim terrorism, carried out entirely by Muslims, for reasons clearly articulated by the most truthful terrorists (including Bin Laden and many of his aides), that constantly relate back to the doctrines of Islam, to passages to be found in Qur'an and Hadith, and in the details of Muhammad's life found in the Sira.
The "root cause" of Muslim terrorism at Ground Zero, as of Muslim terrorism directed at civilians in southern Thailand, or in India, or in Israel, or in the southern Sudan, or in Amsterdam, Madrid, London, and a thousand other places, is Islam. The "root cause" of Muslim terrorism is Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at September 24, 2007 4:52 PM
I've read press releases denouncing Bollinger for inviting this thug. I hope the same press redeems him after what he did.
Didn't anyone ask this thug if he was one of those who invaded the US by taking over the US embassy in Iran during Carter's time?
I think we have to agree with him when he says there aren't any homosexuals in Iran. He cannot say there are any because all homosexuals would either be keeping it really secret, or dead. ;) LOL
Posted by: Gerry at September 24, 2007 4:53 PM
Being since I'm waiting to see the video (I posted a predictability test on another thread for a point), fill me in here (another predictability factor worth noting)...in.re.- body "english":
Did his eyes blink rapidly when asked "uncomfortable" questions? (nervous liar syndrome)
Did his eyebrows go vertical at any time during his comments? (doesn't believe his own words)
Did his eyes keep looking off-angle when "confronted" with "uncomfortable" questions, especially before he uttered word one of any answer?
(escape & evasion act)
His sitting posture...did he sit up straight like a kid in finishing school? (upright, tightly in chair, arms on the rests-hands on the ends), as if being on a witness stand as a hostile witness? (nervously trying to brace for an "impact")
Hand gestures...
-did he pull the vertical finger-pointing as OBL did? (common tactics of pontificatory spewing-especially common to megalomaniacs)
-did he point directly at the audience?
(directly challenging)
-did he rub any part of his face, especially nose, lips, or eyelids? (VERY nervous) (note-scratching once in a while doesn't necessarily mean anything- I'm talking consistencies that mean something)
Did he hesitate a lot? like saying "uhhh" repeatedly (being extremely careful of his words knowing a screwup could cost him)
Did his eyes squint upon hearing a question?
(bitter resentment/hatred of the inquiry)
-did he also keep squinted eyes while answering?
(his blood pressure just skyrocketed)
Just wondered...I'll view the video later tonight (I'm -7 GMT, so bear with me on this)
His body speaks what his mouth does not...common actions of people with a lot to hide.
This should prove interesting.
Posted by: jcom972 at September 24, 2007 4:53 PM
at September 24, 2007 4:55 PM
If there were any homosexuals in Iran this morning, there likely won't be after his return.
He wouldn't want to be proven wrong, I'm sure.
Posted by: PRCS at September 24, 2007 4:57 PM
Jcom972, he did not do any of that - besides pathological liars to not exhibit those mythological gestures anyway.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 24, 2007 4:59 PM
Gerry said
I've read press releases denouncing Bollinger for inviting this thug. I hope the same press redeems him after what he did.
I have to agree with Pelayo: Not so fast.
The "roasting" comments I've seen were all directed personally at Ahmedinijad. Would Bollinger be the first to stand up and declare his allegiance with the Iranian people, who are suffering under the few extremists like Ahmedinijad at the top? Would Bollinger release a statement of clarification that his comments in no way reflect upon the Noble Religion of Peace? Would he next week invite a wealthy Saudi prince to dedicate a new "Islamic Studies" chair at Columbia?
If Ahmedinijad were to step down from power in Iran tomorrow, our situation would not change one bit. Ahmedinijad is not the cause of the problem, he's only a symptom.
Bollinger did alright, but I don't think he deserves any accolades for asking Ahmedinijad tough questions.
Posted by: special_guest at September 24, 2007 5:08 PM
Didn't anyone ask this thug if he was one of those who invaded the US by taking over the US embassy in Iran during Carter's time?
from a post by Gerry
It might not have mattered even if they did. The Left's (and probably TIC's) answer to that question is that the US started it in 1953, with the CIA coup against an elected government.
Then there's Iran's "sympathy" for the US and its offer to help with the Taliban after 9/11, which offer was rewarded by making Iran a charter member of the Axis of Evil. Once Bush used that term, the Iranians had no choice but to live up (or down) to American expectations.
As for Bollinger:
It might have been a show, but it's a good one.
Saudi Arabia should be next on the list, as per special_guest.
The few endowments that are withdrawn might be more than made up for with increased alumni contributions and with new endowments from companies and organizations that might once again begin to see Columbia as a seat of learning instead of a vehicle for propaganda.
Time will tell.
at September 24, 2007 5:12 PM
Pelayo and Special guest raise important points. Bollinger v. Ahmadinejad does not automatically translate into America v. Iran or the West v. Islam.
It may turn out to deflect the latter from happening.
Ahmadinejad wants Americans and Europeans to see this as Islam v. Israel so that Americans and Europeans won't think this is their fight while Muslims will.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 24, 2007 5:16 PM
"I've read press releases denouncing Bollinger for inviting this thug. I hope the same press redeems him after what he did." ~ Gerry
There is no redemption available to Bollinger for having given Iran's Thug-In-Chief, Ahmanutjob, a podium at Columbia. None whatsoever. That they would have invited Hitler if he were available says it all. Those opening comments of his were his pandering to the alumni and trying to prevent a downturn in donations due to his atrocious decision. And he knows it was an atrocious decision: http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/09/if-columbia-is-not-ashamed-of-decision.asp
Posted by: Rick at September 24, 2007 5:17 PM
Leon the pig farmer said
"all the british seem to respect iran whilst denouncing the USA".
hmmmmm, ALL the British "respect" Iran and "denounce" USA
I believe that is what they call a sweeping generalisation, which btw is not even close to being true.
Posted by: g hadi hater at September 24, 2007 5:21 PM
@jcom & Pelayo -
My impression during his interview with the Press Club was that he did all those 'give-away' gestures repeatedly. I even mentioned to my husband that I'd love to see a body language expert take a look at his performance. I wasn't paying that much attention to it during the Columbia speech.
Posted by: mepeteart at September 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.
Interesting to say the least, but I wouldn't get too excited by it. Bollinger is merely attacking an icon that symbolizes the fundemental problem; islam.
When I hear Bollinger addressing the fundemental problem itself with the same fervor and energy as he as done with ahmadinejad, then my interest will be piqued.
At this stage, he is merely grandstanding; however, to his credit -- Bollinger has done more than any other academic to make a token stab at the central issue.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of real intellectual analysis in a post-pc era.
at September 24, 2007 5:30 PM
Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.
Interesting to say the least, but I wouldn't get too excited by it. Bollinger is merely attacking an icon that symbolizes the fundemental problem; islam.
When I hear Bollinger addressing the fundemental problem itself with the same fervor and energy as he as done with ahmadinejad, then my interest will be piqued.
At this stage, he is merely grandstanding; however, to his credit -- Bollinger has done more than any other academic to make a token stab at the central issue.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of real intellectual analysis in a post-pc era.
at September 24, 2007 5:31 PM
Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.
Interesting to say the least, but I wouldn't get too excited by it. Bollinger is merely attacking an icon that symbolizes the fundemental problem; islam.
When I hear Bollinger addressing the fundemental problem itself with the same fervor and energy as he as done with ahmadinejad, then my interest will be piqued.
At this stage, he is merely grandstanding; however, to his credit -- Bollinger has done more than any other academic to make a token stab at the central issue.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of real intellectual analysis in a post-pc era.
at September 24, 2007 5:31 PM
Posted by: jcom972 at September 24, 2007 4:53 PM
HAD the sound off most of the time but did notice the crowd seamed happy about hanging drug pushers which was a surprise to me?
Did notice?
Hand gestures...
-did he pull the vertical finger-pointing as OBL did? (common tactics of pontificatory spewing-especially common to megalomaniacs)
YEP
-did he point directly at the audience?
(directly challenging)
YEP
Did his eyes squint upon hearing a question?
(bitter resentment/hatred of the inquiry)
-did he also keep squinted eyes while answering?
(his blood pressure just skyrocketed)
YEP
at September 24, 2007 5:33 PM
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."
Of course you don't. They're either closeted for fear of their lives or they are hanged from cranes in a public square.
alla f*ckbar!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 24, 2007 5:36 PM
Wanna know another little secret about this thug?
It's really no secret at all, but many seem to keep forgetting this fact...
(Yes, he was most certainly at the US Embassy in '79, but that aside...)
He speaks and understands english...PERFECTLY!
He didn't NEED an interpreter.
at September 24, 2007 5:45 PM
Amazing - that a lefty liberal like Bollinger will speak the truth?
Why has he and the left been silent all this time ?
Does this mean that we will not have to beat the left here as well as the islamic bastards in the ME at the same time ?
Stay tuned.
(will Hillary now say she really likes GWBush ?)
Posted by: dgene at September 24, 2007 5:49 PM
An Ahmadinejad roast? Damn, forgot to bring my "special sauce".
Seriously though, Mr. Ahmahnutjob,
Now that you've come, been seen and heard...don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
at September 24, 2007 5:50 PM
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.
******
That statement could equally apply to Musharraf,
yet Mushy is an ally,
He (Mushy) is worthy of hundreds of millions of dollars of military "aid" - the aid that will eventually be used to kill Indians just across the border,
yet Mushy is an "ally"
He nurtures murderers, mad mullahs and terrorists sworn to kill Americans
yet Mushy is an "ally"
He sells nuclear technology to US enemies, Iran amongst them, and Syrians another US enemy
yet Mushy is an "ally"
He imprisons political opponents, sends them in exile, supresses democracy and threatens his neighbours,
Yet Mushy is an "ally"
Just like Ahmedinejad and the whole muslim world, Mushy would also like to see the state of Israel destroyed
Yet Mushy is an "ally"
With all the right qualities of a dictator that US admires so much in leaders of other countries
Why isn't Ahmedinejad also an "ally" Mr Bush?
Could it be that he is a Shi'ite and not a Sunni like your pay masters in the House of Saud?
at September 24, 2007 5:54 PM
"But then he said he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust."
This is the one thing I agreed with him on. No Western democracy should be putting people in jail for denying the Holocaust. That's like putting people in jail for making asses of themselves. It criminalizes stupidity, which can't be cured with a prison sentence.
Besides, it justifies putting people in jail in Islamic countries for expressing unIslamic ideas, and provides ammunition to Muslims to critize us in the West.
at September 24, 2007 5:56 PM
dgene,
it's called "pandering"
at September 24, 2007 5:58 PM
Posted by: rational at September 24, 2007 5:56 PM
That doesn't happen in the USA we don't throw people in Jail for saying WW2 didn't happen.
Posted by: Catherine at September 24, 2007 6:04 PM
Bollinger was only trying to save the millions that are still probably going to stop dropping into Columbia U. coffers from angry Jewish alumni.
Posted by: Foehammer at September 24, 2007 6:15 PM
Well then Hermit, lets invite Mushi to 'come on down', and speak at Columbia also. Maybe Bollinger will ask him some tough questions.
I am glad that Beasty Boy left the building in a state of altered consciousness. I bet the whole experience spaced him out. This mega-eg-maniac thinks the world loves him. What a surprise to find out that they don't.
Posted by: duh_swami at September 24, 2007 6:18 PM
I told you this liar and maniac would be exposed by even the lame of Columbia.
Posted by: Briars at September 24, 2007 6:22 PM
Bollinger was only covering his own rear end. I'm more than happy to see President Tom talked to that way, but I very seriously doubt it would have happened if so many people hadn't raised holy hell about the visit.
Ol' Dinner Jacket is still making noise about going to Ground Zero. Compared to the cool reception he got at Columbia (where he was INVITED), the reception he gets at Ground Zero might be quite...warm.
at September 24, 2007 6:27 PM
"Ahmadinejad wants Americans and Europeans to see this as Islam v. Israel so that Americans and Europeans won't think this is their fight while Muslims will." Posted by: Old Atlantic
That's an interesting point.
Posted by: Josephine at September 24, 2007 6:29 PM
No one can say for sure what Bollinger Had intended to ask Ineedajob. For some reason the level of discontent at Ineedajob even being invited seemed to have set a line of questions contrary to everyones expectations.
The Liberals Hands were forced away from their Ears, Eyes and Mouths.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 24, 2007 6:35 PM
Thanks Josephine.
Raw Story on Bollinger Remarks
If you scroll to the bottom and click on comments
you can see many comments that fall into this paradigm. One example:
"what has iran done to us? if they support hamas or hezbollah, what have these groups done to us?"
mamameow 09.24.07 - 2:36 pm
Time Magazine comments on this playing well in Iran
Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 24, 2007 6:39 PM
Is it true that the only people who challenged TIC were the gays and that all the other groups (especially women) were silent?
Posted by: PMK at September 24, 2007 6:46 PM
Thug-in-chief repeated the old Arab canard [I know that he's not an Arab] that the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust; it was all done by Europeans. In fact, Berlin hosted a large group of Arab notables and nationalist leaders during WW2 and the Holocaust. The most notorious one was Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], the chief leader of the Palestinian Arabs by courtesy of the British administration in the country [they appointed him Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921 and gave him the Supreme Muslim Council sometime later]. Husseini took part in the Holocaust, visiting Auschwitz and urging the Germans and their eastern European satellites [Bulgaria, Hungary, etc.] to send more Jews to Poland where the main death camps were.
Meanwhile, Nasser and Sadat were trying to help Rommel's forces conquer Egypt.
Posted by: Eliyahu at September 24, 2007 6:56 PM
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."
Found a picture of the last two…
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/IranExecutesGayTeens.jpg
at September 24, 2007 7:01 PM
Bill O'Reilly has Tonya Reiman, a body language expert, on his show every Tuesday. I really hope he has her do a segment on Baboon Boy's speech, it would be fascinating.
Posted by: j_not_a at September 24, 2007 7:07 PM
Heyyyy, there ya go...forgot all about that one.
I hope for that, too...
Thanks for reminding me.
at September 24, 2007 7:24 PM
I wouldn't give Bollinger too much credit. He's doing damage control.
If he hadn't been pressured by folks like us this would have never have happened.
Posted by: atheling at September 24, 2007 8:27 PM
"There's nothing known as absolute," Ahmadinejad said.
Wait until Allah hears about this! Posted by alexon
That's absolutely perfect! Allah must be turning over inside the Black Stone. :)
at September 24, 2007 9:11 PM
Despite Bollinger's gratifyingly forceful remarks, hadn't he put himself in a no-win situation?
After all, Ahmedinejad was invited to Bollinger's university and Bollinger then chews him out. What will be the visceral reaction of people in the Muslim world when they see a guest treated this way?
Posted by: ontheleftcoast at September 24, 2007 10:00 PM
Pelayo,
Also add later on, another place that Jews consider another homeland centuries latter, America.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 24, 2007 10:12 PM
"There's nothing known as absolute."
Must've been reading Derrida, et al.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at September 24, 2007 10:14 PM
Most surprising to read here that some thought Bollinger was bold and effective. I found him to be a dupe who gave a forum to a thug. And as Hugh Hewitt has already commented, does anyone in their right mind think that Ahmadinejad's responses won't be heavily edited in the censored Islamic world to put him and his comments in the most favorable light. My take: Bollinger was seemingly confrontational but this represented appearance of the most superficial kind. The thug came away with exactly what he wanted. Ahmadinejad knows he can't win the West over and yet the West gave him a forum to present himself to the Islamic world as heroically standing up to the unbelievers. Score one for our enemies. Shame on Columbia.
Posted by: Wellington at September 24, 2007 10:14 PM
After all, Ahmedinejad was invited to Bollinger's university and Bollinger then chews him out. What will be the visceral reaction of people in the Muslim world when they see a guest treated this way?
Posted by: ontheleftcoast
Answer: Muslim Supremicist propaganda does not work on Americans. A rattlesnake with a flower in his mouth is not a symbol of peace. Ahmedijack
expected to blow over the audience like Hitler did, however, even at Columbia their are still some brains who seek the truth and this tyrant, like a vampire, does hold up well under light. Only Muslims who wear the same disguise will be insulted.
at September 24, 2007 10:15 PM
should have been: does not hold up well under light as is the case with vampires.
Posted by: Briars at September 24, 2007 10:16 PM
Hugh,
"That is the answer to "why did this happen." No one would have sought to find the "root causes" of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in anything other than Kodo, the blend of emperor-worship and extreme Japanese militarism that all through the 1920s began spreading throughout the ruling class, both military and civilian, in Japan. No one would think to find the "root causes" for Hitler's attack on Poland that led Britain and France to finally declare war, in anything other than the doctrine promulgated by Hitler that the "Aryans" of Germany needed, and were entitled to, Lebensraum by seizing lands belonging to all non-Aryan and therefore inferior peoples."
Ironic that you would write this Hugh, because tonight I got see the second presentation of the new miniseries by Ken Burns about WWII called "The War". It has not gotten a lot of press because the msn knows that once again, we are in a new world war, thanks to Islam and Islamism. The miniseries is based on how WWII affected 4 American cities, one in my home state, Connecticut, is the city of Waterbury. This miniseries comes at a time in which the lessons of WWII need to be relearned.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 24, 2007 10:18 PM
WHERE IS HIS AURA?
Looks like allah abandoned the monkeyman. he came across as a fool, that he is. He expected the usual fawning and ass kissing from leftist student and activites but he forgot that he has alienated them by denying the holocoust, denying homosexual rights, women rights, isreal rights and so on. i am glad that instead of the university giving him a pedestal to pour out his rant he was instead grilled like a fish.
Posted by: desidude at September 24, 2007 10:21 PM
"Nasser and Sadat were trying to help Rommel's forces conquer Egypt."
-- from a posting above
Sadat was imprisoned by the British for his pro-Nazi activities.
at September 24, 2007 10:27 PM
So, Bollinger took a shot at an easy target, the drooling idiot the mullahs thought they could control, and made himself look good compared to Harvard for the reception they gave a year ago to one of Ahmadinejad's mullah betters whose name escapes momentarily.
And then there's the matter of the disgracefully shoddy investigation of the treatment of Jewish students at the hands of the likes of Joseph Massad and other "notables" teaching in Columbia's middle east studies program and Barnard College's tenure candidacy of the abysmal Nadia Abu-Haj.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 24, 2007 10:33 PM
I still don't think Ahmendijahd should have been invited to Columbia University. Yes, he made a fool of himself with regards to "the no gays in Iran" speech. And, he didn't speak in English and this makes it much harder for him to communicate successfully with his audience.
But the Iranian press will show students applauding him. And, that is probably his goal.
Posted by: DavidE at September 24, 2007 11:05 PM
waterdragon52 has been a commentator here at JW/DW for quite some time now. I for one, heed his words.
He is merely a product of extensive exposure to Robert, Hugh and Co, his offerings an example of quality over quantity.
The debate of whether Ahmadinejad should have been afforded the forum to speak at Columbia is in question, I for one, support it fully. The result however, was a pleasant surprise, with no thanks to Bollinger, who simply did his best to save face.
I believe David Horowitz wrote a good book on the subject.
For those who live under a rock, my advice is to let the Islamist speak, often. They usually say what they mean and mean what they say. They attempt to dance, especially in Ahmadinejad's case today, but the obvious is, they are no dancer by trade.
Posted by: awake at September 24, 2007 11:18 PM
DavidE:
You are absolutely correct. A big win for President Tom. Besides the crack about no gays being in Iran, there was a tremendous amount of applause.
If I was a dissident in Iran, this would be very disheartening.
We need to take a page from the Reagan playbook. Speak of solidarity with dissidents, and take the tyrants to task.
Bollinger made a good faith attempt to make a positive impact, but the end result was negative. If Bollinger's speech was to accomplish anything, it should have focused less on history and more on current day dissidents.
Supporting dissidents is the key to applying internal pressure. The Iranians understand that. By coming to Columbia, that is exactly what the bad guys accomplished.
The Daily Kos, Moveon.org, and other leftists are know going to be talking about how reasonable President Tom sounds.
Today was a defeat.
Posted by: JSobieski at September 25, 2007 12:27 AM
Awake:
It would have been much more effective had Bollinger played video of what Ahmadinejad has said while in Iran. Challenge him on his own words. Showing people what Jihadists say among themselves in what Horowitz was talking about. Letting these folks lie to people who don't know better is NOT helpful.
The applause was disheartening, even to this cynic.
Posted by: JSobieski at September 25, 2007 12:31 AM
jsobieski,
Nothing I saw or heard on the matter suggests that it was a successful PR outing for Ahmadinejad.
Time will tell however. Robert can post articles and pictures until he is blue in the face all he wants, ones with the English translations below Arabic phrases that are intentionally misrepresentative, as he did today.
There is no substitute for hearing it from the horse's mouth, again and again and again.
If Mahmoud rallies his base more than he already has, more than Islam has, as it seems forever, I am unconcerned. It is expected. The minds of us here in the West, the politicians and the people, is what concerns me most, for Islam cannot win unless WE allow it.
To offset that, it seems we need more exposure to Islam and the Islamists. Today was a good start, so I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that point out of context applause aside.
Posted by: awake at September 25, 2007 12:41 AM
awake said
waterdragon52 has been a commentator here at JW/DW for quite some time now. I for one, heed his words.
Her words. And me too.
Posted by: special_guest at September 25, 2007 1:17 AM
Yes, Bollinger was indeed the surprise of the day.
And, in retrospect, I think Bollinger and Columbia did the world a favor by letting everyone who wanted to (and wants to) watch see what a raving madman this Ahmedinijad is.
Sometimes, if you hang the noose long enough out their, an idiot will step right into it and hang himself. And he is most obviously an idiot.
Ahmanutjob said that jews are well protected in Iran. According to iranian law, the life of a jew is worth 1/18th of the life of a muslim. This is how much "protection" jews have.
And maybe there are no more gays in Iran. I think they are all hanging from the gallows, or?
God, what a repugnant piece of shit.
Excuse me, I am one of those evil zionists, so I will allow myself to curse today.
May he burn in hell forever.
Posted by: bonncaruso at September 25, 2007 6:56 AM
Old Atlantic -- Thank you for the links. I had to give up on the comments before my brain exploded. Wow.
Posted by: Josephine at September 25, 2007 7:56 AM
"...After all, Ahmedinejad was invited to Bollinger's university and Bollinger then chews him out. What will be the visceral reaction of people in the Muslim world when they see a guest treated this way?" Posted by: ontheleftcoast
I can tell you what my visceral reaction was and I am a non-Muslim Canadian who despises the little thug.
It is incredibly rude to invite someone -- the president of another country -- to be your honoured guest speaker and then to excoriate him in your introduction. It was the height of bad manners. The accusations should have come during the Q&A period.
I think Mr. Bollinger is two-faced. Either his university invited DinnerJacket as a guest, in which case he should have been treated as such, or they invited him as an adversary, and if that's the case I don't think they told DinnerJacket that. The introduction should have been impartial and diplomatic in keeping with their invitation.
(For the record, I don't think DinnerJacket should have been invited. You can't have an open dialogue with a lying snake. And I'm not worried about whether or not his feelings were hurt.)
Posted by: Josephine at September 25, 2007 8:08 AM
Awake:
The naive and uninformed will focus on misleading statements such as "Iran wants peace" and conclude that Mahmoud isn't the monster we make him out to be.
Doublespeak is the most powerful tool in his arsenal, and we made him the news of the day.
Besides the comment about gays (his one slip up), what did he say yesterday that show his true colors? His statements did the opposite for the most part. He wants peace. He wants to help Americans with their problems. He doesn't deny the Holocaust, he simply wants more study. Students in Iran have free speech. Guests in Iran who disagree politically with the government are treated well, etc.
Focus on what Mahmoud actually said yesterday, and not on what you know he has said in the past. Then look for the feedback from the center and the left to focus on his humanity.
Mark my words--this was a significant propaganda loss. The people in the audience providing him applause should be ashamed. If Bollinger had focused more on current oppression by Mahmoud instead of historical murder by the Nazis, its possible the amount of applause for Mahmoud could have been dampened. As it is, he's got plenty of good clips to take home and use to dispirit potential resistors with.
The Columbia fiasco did nothing to reveal the monster of Mahmoud. People laughed at the gay comment because they found the rest of the speach pretty agreeable, so it shocked them.
Posted by: JSobieski at September 25, 2007 9:24 AM
Josephine:
As per Michelle Malkin it may have been a Columbia/nutjob quid pro quo.
This is a third option that explains Mr. Bollinger's introduction.
Of course, this snake should not have even entered US.
Re. this stupid idea that every opinion counts: why Hitler was not invited at Yalta :-) ?
at September 25, 2007 10:50 AM
BlessUS_BanIslam -- I agree.
Posted by: Josephine at September 25, 2007 11:39 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297964,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Default.aspx
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1A28AD11-7807-40D5-90F6-D5624A092F18
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=49F83A83-3A7F-4EE3-8498-53634CD5EB5F
Total dog-&-pony show, with bouts of wag-the-dog.
He wasn't roasted at all.
See my post at "Watch the fun" thread.
'nuf sed.
at September 25, 2007 12:08 PM
"Her words. And me too."
Posted by: special_guest at September 25, 2007 1:17 AM
Ooops, I was afraid of that. Thanks for the heads up. Waterdragon52, please accept my apology. :)
at September 25, 2007 12:36 PM
Oh, let's just call "BS" on this whole thing - Pres. Bollinger of Columbia is the most PC apologist for every fringe radical in the country, a man who won't allow ROTC on his campus because of the Military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, even while he's willing to spend school funds to put foot baths in public university restrooms. Mind you, these ROTC cadets (including some who are "not telling") would be the very people responsible for defending homosexual rights against the dictates of Muslim extremists like Ahmadinejad. Personally, I thought it was in very poor taste to introduce a visiting head of state, who had been purposely invited to speak at Columbia, with a personal attack and polemics and Ahmadinejad got one of his few bursts of supportive applause when he responded to Bollinger's graceless introduction. That said, I was gratified that Ahmadinejad was embarassed by the questions posited. Bollinger was just a distracting embarassment, whose performance will allow Ahmadinejad to claim a symbolic victory against a hostile audience. Bollinger could have foregone the invitation to speak or he could have shut the eff up and let Ahmadinejad's own craziness speak for itself once he was subjected to questioning. By inserting himself into the equation, he merely proved what a tool he is. The credit goes to the students for asking the hard questions and for derisively responding to the lies and evasions offered in response.
Posted by: oldefarte at September 25, 2007 3:08 PM
yep...sure did...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MvAChuF4i8
(/sarc)
at September 25, 2007 4:02 PM
...Muslims roast people differently than we do...
“Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post. The soldiers did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said."
at September 25, 2007 4:48 PM
...Muslims roast people differently than we do...
“Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post. The soldiers did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said."
at September 25, 2007 4:53 PM
Yeah...especially children...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56643
...sad to say...
at September 25, 2007 5:11 PM
"... But then he said he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust. 'There's nothing known as absolute,' he said."
- - - -
"...'In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country.' With the audience laughing derisively, he continued: 'In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this'."
- - - - - - - - - -
Obviously "Truth" under Islam, like Allah himself, is indescribable, unknowable, unpredictable, and can change from moment to moment and from past to present to future.
So, as you can see, it's TRUE that "Muslims never lie"; they just tell the "truth of the moment" which may later be replaced by another "truth" of a different moment.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at September 25, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment on "Mushy" vs "Nut Job":
I listened to NPR "All Things Considered" today, 9/25. Their story on Ahmadnutjob simply confirmed that there are gay Iranian expatriates in Canada, according to "Iranian Queer Organization". No comment on holocaust denial. The nut job was referred to respectfully as the "President of Iran" (as opposed to petty dicatator).
Gays in Iran? Disputing Ahmadenijad
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14698624
NPR was much more critical of our ally "Mushy":
Media in Pakistan Emboldened Against Leader
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14698620
All Things Considered, September 25, 2007
"Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf faces many challenges in his bid to retain power, but the country's Supreme Court has yet to decide if it's legal for him run for a new term. The court seems to have become genuinely independent — as, possibly, has another institution, the Pakistani media."
So the Pakistani media has been allowed to criticize Mushy and has aired interviews with opposition leader Bhutto. Since the Iranian media never criticizes Ahmadinejad, should we assume that all Iranians love him?
How gullible do they think we are? It's what I expected of NPR. They did refer to Mushy as a military dictator, which is true. They don't use the word dictator to refer to Nut Job.
They call it "All Things Considered", so it can't be biased, right? ;)
Posted by: CTYankee
at September 25, 2007 10:16 PM
LOL
:-D
at September 25, 2007 10:28 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)